Chouteau v. Uhrig
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. I. The instruction given for the plaintiff below was erroneous in the following particulars : — 1. It defines the ordinary care which it requires to be, such as a prudent man exercises about “ his own property,” instead of saying such as a prudent commander of a boat exercises about his keel in towing the same. 2. The Court in this instruction tells the jury that the Mermaid proceeded in the “ night time,” and leaves it to the…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. I. The instruction given for the plaintiff below was erroneous in the following particulars : — 1. It defines the ordinary care which it requires to be, such as a prudent man exercises about “ his own property,” instead of saying such as a prudent commander of a boat exercises about his keel in towing the same. 2. The Court in this instruction tells the jury that the Mermaid proceeded in the “ night time,” and leaves it to the jury to say whether it was a want of proper care to proceed with the keel in the “ night time,” — thus assuming this fact,…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
This was- an action of assumpsit brought by Uhrig and others as owners of the keel-boat Hornet, against Chouteau and others, owners of the steamboat Mermaid, to recover the value of the said keel-boat, alleged to have been lost through the negligence of the officers of the Mermaid. The keel-boat was hired to the Captain of the Mermaid, at the rate of $2:50 per day, to be returned in good order at the option of either party. The keel-boat was snagged and sunk whilst the Mermaid was attempt*64ing to land on the Illinois shore, just above the mouth of the Missouri.
The plaintiffs obtained a verdict,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ford v. FellowsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Goodwin v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893